Climate science from climate scientists...
There are two hearings today from the new congress that are of relevance for RealClimate readers:
The House Oversight Committee is having hearings on the possible suppression of climate change science by the administration (streaming from here). Witnesses include Drew Shindell (NASA GISS), Roger Pielke Jr. and R. Piltz. Update: Full hearing video available at C-SPAN.
The Senate EPW Committee is having an open forum for senators to discuss climate change legislation (streaming from here).
) (
) Halldór Björnsson, William Connolley and Gavin Schmidt (traduit par Etienne Pesnelle)
A la fin de l’an dernier, le Trésor britannique a publié le rapport Stern sur les conséquences économiques du changement climatique, qui a été reçu avec enthousiasme par l’ensemble de la classe politique du Royaume-Uni, c’est à dire la gauche et la droite Depuis, il a fait l’objet de nombreux débats et critiques (voir la liste qu’a établie Rabbett Run). L’essentiel de la discussion a tourné autour des problèmes économiques (et éthiques) associés à “l’actualisation” (c’est-à-dire comment mesurer le bien-être futur à l’aune du bien-être actuel), ce dont traite notamment Nordhaus . Nous ne sommes pas qualifiés pour discuter de ces points, aussi ne les avons-nous pas commentés précédemment.
Toutefois, comme l’illustrent les interviews données lors d’une émission récente de Radio 4 (dont une avec notre William Connolley), certaines questions ont concerné la science qui sous-tend les calculs économiques. Nous allons essayer de les aborder.
Kerry Emanuel (whose influential scientific work we’ve discussed here previously) has written a particularly lucid and poignant popular article on climate change for the literary forum “Boston Review”. The article is entitled Phaeton’s Reins: The human hand in climate change. We thought it worth passing along.
Guest Commentary from Andy Baker, U. of Birmingham
It doesn’t seem obvious really. Going underground into caves, removing stalagmites and analysing their isotopic composition isn’t the first thing you would do to look for past climate information. But for nearly 40 years, there has been an active, and growing research community that investigates the climate records preserved in these archives. Stalagmites have recently received high profile use in climate reconstructions, for example records from China and Norway have featured in Moberg’s last millennium temperature reconstruction; in a northern hemisphere temperature reconstruction of the last 500 years and even been debated here on RealClimate. So it seems timely to review why on (or even under) earth should research go underground to look at surface climate.
“An Inconvenient Truth,” the Davis Guggenheim documentary on global warming starring Al Gore’s presentation on the subject, provides an accurate, engaging, accessible, thought-provoking and (at times) even humorous introduction to one of the most important scientific issues of our time ( see our review of the movie). In some countries, viewing “An Inconvenient Truth” has actually become a required part of the science curriculum, and with good justification, we think. Given that the DVD is currently selling for $19.99 through Amazon.com, you’d think that the National Science Teachers’ Association ( NSTA) would jump at the chance to quickly get 50,000 free copies quickly into the hands of their members. Yet, when Laurie David, one of the producers of the film, made this offer to NSTA last November, it was summarily turned down on the grounds that the NSTA has a 2001 policy against “product endorsement” (as if Laurie David were trying to shop some new deodorant to high school science teachers). What in the world is going on here?
Before continuing with the history of NSTA’s bizarre decision, let us provide you with the most important information: Up to 50,000 US science teachers can receive a free copy of the DVD by filling out a simple request form here . The deadline for requesting your copy is January 18, so if you want a copy, take a few minutes to put in your request right away.
[Read more…] about Calling All Science Teachers
) Cécilia Bitz, Université de Washington (traduit par Valérie Masson-Delmotte)
Ce mois-ci, un article dont j’étais co-auteur a attiré considérablement l’attention des médias. Les unes des journaux titraient : “Les experts tirent la sonnette d’alarme : le Pôle Nord libre de glace d’ici à 2040”; ““Fonte massive : perte de banquise en boule de neige”; et “L’Arctique dégagée pour la navigation d’été d’ici 2040 : les modèles prévoient un déclin rapide de la banquise”. Cette histoire a aussi gagné les chaînes de télévision : NPR, BBC, CBC, Discovery Channel et Fox News, parmi d’autres. Le Dr Marika Holland, premier auteur de cet article, a été submergée par les sollicitations médiatiques. Parmi les douzaines de journalistes qui m’ont également contactée, j’ai été impressionnée par les questions qui m’ont été posées – des questions qui reflètent probablement ce que le grand public veut savoir en priorité. Cependant, après avoir donné de longues interviews, je vois souvent mes explications réduites à quelques lignes dans les articles… Dans cet essai, je voudrais expliquer les résultats scientifiques de notre publication et mes réponses aux questions les plus fréquentes.
) (
) () It has now become all too common. Peculiar weather precipitates immediate blame on global warming by some, and equally immediate pronouncements by others (curiously, quite often the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in recent years) that global warming can’t possibly be to blame. The reality, as we’ve often remarked here before, is that absolute statements of neither sort are scientifically defensible. Meteorological anomalies cannot be purely attributed to deterministic factors, let alone any one specific such factor (e.g. either global warming or a hypothetical long-term climate oscillation).
Lets consider the latest such example. In an odd repeat of last year (the ‘groundhog day’ analogy growing ever more appropriate), we find ourselves well into the meteorological Northern Hemisphere winter (Dec-Feb) with little evidence over large parts of the country (most noteably the eastern and central U.S.) that it ever really began. Unsurprisingly, numerous news stories have popped up asking whether global warming might be to blame. Almost as if on cue, representatives from NOAA’s National Weather Service have been dispatched to tell us that the event e.g. “has absolutely nothing to do with global warming”, but instead is entirely due to the impact of the current El Nino event.
[Update 1/9/07: NOAA coincidentally has announced today that 2006 was officially the warmest year on record for the U.S.]
[Update 2/11/08: It got bumped to second place. ]
[Read more…] about El Nino, Global Warming, and Anomalous U.S. Winter Warmth
Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann, David Archer, Stefan Rahmstorf, William Connolley, and Raymond Bradley
Andy Revkin, who’s one of the best journalists on the climate beat, wrote a curious piece in the NY Times discussing the ‘middle stance’ of the climate debate. It’s nice to see news pieces on climate that aren’t breathless accounts of a new breakthough and that take the time to point out that the vast majority of relevant scientists take climate change extremely seriously. To that extent, the message of this piece was a welcome one. The curious part, however, was the thread running through the piece that this middle ground is only now emerging, and even curiouser, that this middle ground can be characterized as representing some sort of ‘heresy’.
Heresy, is commonly defined as ‘an opinion or doctrine at variance with the official or orthodox position’. So where does this idea come from, and why is it now ’emerging’?
[Read more…] about Consensus as the New Heresy
) () Cet article est aussi disponible en français.